1. Field of Invention
A container gardening system for the regulated and automatic watering of plants grown within the system provides a large capacity water regulator having an internal water control device, supplying a controlled amount of water through connecting tubing to at least one growth container providing a constant water source to an elevated and covered plant growth medium suspended upon a platform above an elevated support structure, with at least one column of the plant growth medium extending into a bottom reservoir portion of the container, lifting water into the plant growth medium through passive wicking providing water to the roots of the plants growing within the elevated plant growth medium.
2. Description of Prior Art
A preliminary review of prior art patents was conducted by the applicant which reveal prior art patents in a similar field or having similar use. However, the prior art inventions do not disclose the same or similar elements as the present plant growth container system, nor do they present the material components in a manner contemplated or anticipated in the prior art.
U.S. Pat. No. 4,965,963 to Lyon includes a lower support that appears to be some type of folded or thin vertical planar support, like a portion of the folded elevated support matrix made form a corrugated plastic sheet, as would be one embodiment of the lower support matrix of the present invention. However, it requires a capillary wick to supply the water contained in the bottom of the plant pot into the growth soil. It further lacks reference to an connection or automatic water supply. In U.S. Pat. No. 5,426,889 to Buora, there is disclosed a potting soil of plant growth medium in communication with the lower water supply with a natural aspiration of water to the above material. It has a “roof” which support soil within the portion of the container above the roof and defines automatic aspiration columns filled with some type of cultivation substratum (28) to introduce water from the reservoir below the “roof” and carry it up to the soil above the roof. However, there is no true definition of this material within the patent, so it may simply be soil. However, the watering of this materials is conducted from above, the liquid stored below the “roof” and introduced into the materials by either pouring the water through the material in the upper pot 12 into the reservoir or apparently introducing the water directly into the lower pot 13, which could be done in a view of FIG. 2. There is also no overflow diversion which would prevent water from spilling out of the lower pot.
Shaw, U.S. Pat. No. 6,418,664, has a float regulator but no anywhere near that which is employed into the present invention. It requires an electronic float sensor which apparently requires a battery or power supply and water is presented to the soil by a wick (6) from a water reservoir. The reservoir is filled like a kerosene lantern. In fact, Shaw appears to be a kerosene lantern except the liquid is water and the delivery destination is soil. A multiple container system is disclosed in U.S. Patent Application No. 2011/0179708 to Stewart, connecting more than one growth container to a common lower water supply 24, and also employs a float valve 12. There is a elevating matrix and a platform over which soil is applied. Water is transferred from the lower reservoir to the soil above the platform by a wicking blanket 102, simply called a wick 102, which is defined as a fabric-like material that exhibits the ability to wick water, such as strips of felt, terry cloth, or wool. [0038] Another published application, U.S. Patent Application No. 2012/0210642 to Tomas, provides a plant watering system forming boxes connected together with a ball cock regulator between each box, the box providing a platform for the placement of potted plants 20 a-d, and a punch out for the further connection of boxes in series.
It is the contention of the present inventor that these prior art patent, alone and in combination, do not provide the elements presented in the claims of the present invention, nor do they provide the basis of contention that those skilled in the art would find the claims subject matter obvious derivatives of the known prior art. Do to the distinction pointed out in the remaining specification and claims below.